Reactions to Managing Counterproductive Behavior through the Implementation of a Drug and Alcohol Testing Program: Americans and Canadians are More Different than You Might Expect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organizations have begun to implement drug and alcohol testing programs to screen potential and existing employees for substance abuse in an effort to curb counterproductive behavior at work. Paradoxically, these policies can be seen as unfair and potentially result in counterproductive behavior. The present study investigated whether differences exist between Canada and the USA, two nations that have often been described as ‘indistinguishable’ from one another, with respect to their perceptions of fairness and acceptance of the introduction of a drug and alcohol testing policy in the workplace. Scenarios were used to test the hypotheses. The results showed that Canadians ( N = 163) were less accepting of the policy and perceived the policy as less fair than their American counterparts ( N = 127). In addition, the results showed that the difference between third‐party observers’ and recipients’ acceptance of the policy was less for Canadians than for Americans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".